The ideal timing for orthodontic intervention continues to be a subject of clinical and academic debate, particularly regarding whether early, growth-phase treatment provides measurable benefits over intervention initiated in the late mixed or early permanent dentition. Current evidence from randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses (including scoping reviews) suggests that early treatment can produce short-term improvements, including reduction of excessive overjet, alleviation of dental crowding, and enhanced facial and dental esthetics, which may contribute to psychosocial benefits for children vulnerable to bullying or self-image concerns (primarily based on observational evidence). However, these early improvements often fail to demonstrate sustained long-term skeletal correction or superior stability when compared with treatment initiated closer to the pubertal growth peak, where skeletal responsiveness is biologically more favorable. For class II malocclusions, early orthopedic appliance therapy may temporarily improve sagittal relationships and incisor position but does not consistently outperform single-phase treatment delivered later, particularly in terms of skeletal correction, treatment duration, or overall efficiency. Overall, evidence indicates that routine early treatment is not universally advantageous; instead, early intervention should be selectively applied to cases with functional, skeletal, psychosocial, or eruption-related need, while comprehensive orthodontic correction is generally best reserved for the late mixed or early permanent dentition to optimize treatment efficiency, stability, and patient burden.